Skip to main content

About your Search

20121129
20121207
Search Results 0 to 15 of about 16
government and freep enterprise movement and connect those policies. >> why has there been a failure to connect? >> i'm not sure there is one reason for it and i haven't had time to think about it why it has happened but it needs to happen. the principles we stand for, free enterprise and limited government is the only way to stabilize and grow our middle class which i hope every american can attain. >> how worried are you about the republican chances -- >> you mean from the voters' perspective. the demographic changes? i don't think any voter in america -- there are voters that are locked into one party or the other but the fastest growing group is people who vote for candidates and not parties and people understand the issues and hopes that they have and offer real and concrete policy situations and real role for government to play in addressing those angst yits they face. we are one election away to do it. we have to recognize what it is and concentrate on doing it. >> how much of a danger to republicans do you think is posed by the changing demographic? >> it's not a danger but i
's grave for the obvious fact that we believe that the assad government has weapononized chemical and biological agents and put them in a position where they can be used fairly rapidly. as you look back over the 20 months of this conflict, this follows a series of events, one leading to the other which people said could not happen. this began, remember, with peaceful demonstrations. and when assad was unable to control them or suppress, he began to fire on his own people and they began to defend themselves in a very unfair fight which everyone thought we should take sides on the side of freedom and give the freedom fighters the weapons with which they could fight. it happened much too late. and people said, at least he's not using his air force to attack his own people and then he began to attack his own people from the air. now more than 40,000 killed. so when we see the government of assad weaponize chemical and biological agents and put them in bombs, we know this is a leader with no limits and unfortunately he follows his father who proved capable of using weapons against his
. the government didn't think it could distinguish between mortgage interest and other kinds of interest. less interest is deductible now. some of the things are left over from the early days of the tax code. there is no magic about allowing people to deduct mortgage interest and not the interest they pay on their credit cards. some of these things are hard to explain. host: does it incentivize home buying? guest: it does provide some if incentive for buying a home and is a large tax break and gives them an enormous benefits. it mostly provides an incentive for buying a bigger house. it seems to incentivize mcmansions. there is a fair question of whether that is something we should be spending that much money on. host: let's go to ohio, robert is a democrat. caller: yes, my question is this. a question/comment. i have seen all these outbreaks been giving out. supposedly they were created for an incentive for them to hire more people. they were given as four years and years. a majority of these companies did very little in hiring. they say they still need to do this. why should we continue givi
back to state and local governments. but during an era of fiscal restraint and global warming, it's high time that we start this conversation in earnest. how big do you want your fema to be? how generous your disaster relief payments and how much do you want to pay for it? in today's "new york times" op-ed section, there's an article that points out potential liability for flood insurance alone is $1.25 trillion. second only to the liability for social security. right now we have arguably the worst of both worlds. the federal government responds to disaster usually paying too much for the wrong people to do the wrong things. we provide federal money to put people back in harm's way and sometimes provide infrastructure to make future risky development worse. we often take remedial action, like for theifying beaches, a temporary solution, that can actually accelerate erosion elsewhere, shift storm damage down the coast to another spot or more serious flooding downriver. by giving the illusion of protection, more people locate in dangerous areas and the vicious cycle is repeated with
is that it is a government agency that is not as nimble. long-term, if you have 3% down payment, it is one thing to trust that the lenders to use the program will operate according to the guidelines, but does the institution have the bandwidth to change circumstances? even if it were not as severe as 2006, say we go through a period where congress allows downpayment-funded assistance. how able is the fha to set those proper underwriting standards? >> there is no question that the fha any other agency needs to be more organized than what we have today. fhfa it is 80 years old. it has never required taxpayer money. the fact that we have a 1000- year flat and fha has plans for a 100-year flat, it is unfortunate, but it has worked out somewhat well. >> what we should be thinking about is, how do we take advantage of this opportunity to learn how to do the modernization that roberta talked about? we did learn about ko'd during this crisis, when fha wanted to change its standards and eliminate a program that was clearly costing it a significant portion, having an agency which does not have the authority to act
of government, and the president is proposing to grow it more. to spend more. the problem is isn't tax policy, mr. speaker. the problem is spending. you know, mr. speaker, we hear a lot about fairness. i want to talk a little bit about that now. i'm going to switch to tax policy because that's what everybody seems to be obsessed with in the media. i want to make sure we dispel some of the myths of what's going on there. i went to dictionary.com as i'm apt to do, mr. speaker, and printed out what fair is. they said free from bias, dishonesty, or injustice. the first definition. free from bias, dishonesty, or injustice. and two, legitimately thought, pursued, done, or given proper under the rules. fair. but i think we all support fairness. i'm certain that we do, but i'm absolute certain what president obama believes is fair is different from what the people i represent believe is fair. and what i brought here, mr. speaker, is a chart from the joint committee on taxation, that's the group here on capitol hill that is in charge of measuring all the tax policy, it's a nonpartisan group, they just
businesses which provide 67% of the jobs in this country. that may fund the government for a short time. then, what's the plan? stimulus 2.0. because the first stimulus worked so well? that was a disaster as well. we have a $16 trillion deficit, and the president wants to spend more money. are you kidding me? spending is the problem. we don't need more of it. lastly, he wants the power to raise the debt ceiling without congressional approval. the administration cannot issue an edict like a money monarchy. congress, congress, congress is in control of the purse. we have gone wild and that's just the way it is. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? mr. quigley: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. quigley: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, the impact that independent locally owned businesses have in our communities comes as no surprise. the social and environmental outcomes are essentia
, alexander hamilton, observe energy is a leading character in good government. the president must lead in a divided government and must not advocate his or her responsibility. president obama has the responsibility to propose a real bipartisan plan to avert the fiscal cliff that can pass both the house and the senate. withdrawing from the recommendations of the simpson- bowles commission, the president could propose a plan that would not only avert the so-called fiscal cliff, but also help us avert the yawning fiscal of this ivory for me -- it this goal -- fiscal abyss. if president obama were to offer such a plan, republicans would act favorably. going over the cliff is unnecessary. as it has been observed in "the wall street journal," the president is boxing in the republicans. he is offering them a deal they cannot accept. first, the president has repeatedly called for a balanced solution involving both revenue and less spending. what is obvious to the most casual observer is that this plan is not a balanced. the fiscal cliff involves nearly four dollars of anticipated revenue from
reflected back on the 1995-1996 government shut down, but i spent a lot of time thinking about it, and what a lot of people don't realize is that a big reason that we ended up with that government shut down is because of the disagreement between the parties over whose numbers to use, whether omb's numbers or cbo's numbers. we have to agree on the basic numbers, and the basic baseline that we're working from before we ultimately reach any kind of agreement, and i'll stop. >> good. thank you, phil. we're almost out of time. one or two more comments, anyone on the panel? >> phil made a very good point, and it reminds me of an analogous situation, perhaps in 1983 with social security fix. when walking out of the room, the people who agreed from one side of the aisle to the other also agreed to allow each other to characterize the agreement in the way of their choosing. for example, the agreement to tax social security benefits became a tax on the democratic side and benefit cuts on the republican side, leaving open the possibility that give people -- if people decide there's an era of good feel
. and so, listen, i understand ideologically why people who believe that they want to shrink government up so small they can drown it in a bathtub may always lead that way, but it's not in the best interest of the american people in my humble opinion. >> i am going to be measured in my response because you all have an obligation to ask questions. but i hope at some point you all who have heard us on this side and the other side of the aisle talking about this will do the math, quite honestly. i can tabulate very quickly for you $3 trillion worth of cuts that have now gone into law that democrats have been there on the tough -- on those tough negotiations. the chairman mentioned $1 trillion that was exacted as a result of the budget control act where the republicans were threatening for the first time have the nation default on its credit if we didn't do something. $1 trillion. that's already taking place, the $1 trillion in cuts. there's another $1.2 trillion that came from the same law, as we know, as the sequester, that also by law will start to take place. that's $2.2 trillion. we talke
options will get the revenue for the government. >> in terms of getting rid of deductions or expanding the base, there's basically three approaches to we can take. one is the overall cap. capping the total amount of deductions or capping the tax value of deductions like maya and marty feld stein have put forth and the advantage to that is politically you're not actually attacking anyone -- any one specific subsidy, you're just saying we're putting a cap on the overall system. a second way is what john podesta mentioned, we are going to change specific items but wohl change them all in the same way. you're not special, we're not picking on you, so we're going to change all deductions to 18% or something like that. the third way which is probably the perfect way from the economic approach is to deal with each of these on an individual bay sess. tax expenditures generally cover an enormous range of activities whether it's ex-cluges or deductions or credits or lower rates, etc. we call them all tax expenditures but it shouldn't hide the underlying heterogeneity. so a package that went afte
, security, public safety, those are the fundamental obligations of government. and secondly, we live in an increasingly dangerous world with increasing threats against our citizens and targets that are viewed as high profile. for those reasons, mr. speaker and others, i earnestly believe those who serve this country as president should never have to worry about their personal safety. under current law, protection for president obama and president george w. bush will cease after 10 years. both men are young, enjoy good health and have long lives ahead of them postpresidency. this bill proposes to extend that security for the remainder of their lives. there's an unintended anomaly, mr. speaker, that were current law not changed, barbara bush would have more safety than if they were president themselves. the person and the symbol of our presidency is safe and secure for the occuration of their natural lives. with that i would yield. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: mr. speaker, before i yield to the distinguished gentlelady fr
debt. sovereign entity states and governments, countries, will have debt to finance the things they cannot pay for out tried. i used to work an invisible bond department of a wall street firm. there were all kinds of bonds, which is debt of cities and countries and states. of course there is the federal debt. as i recall, some people with fiduciary responsibility are only allowed to select investments that have very high ratings. the highest raiders in the world, at one time -- rated in the world, at one time, was the united states of america. and widows and orphans funds will invest in government bonds. host: alma, thank you for your call. we will consider your suggestion. the senate banking, housing and urban affairs committee is about to hold a hearing on the oversight of the fha program. shaun donovan will be testifying. we will be going to that as soon as that hearing begins. i want to show you this article in "the new york times took ." president obama plans to ask congress for about $50 billion for emergency funds to help rebuild the state's the were ravaged by hurricane
the levers of government and don't accomplish anything as it relates to this. and now we want to turn around and say that this is a flawed bill. at the ent of the day -- at the end of the day this meets the needs of our corporations, of create manager jobs here in america, -- creating more jobs here in america, create manager work. and it rectifies an issue in the video is a program, instofede having families split because someone has a legitimate green card, is a resident here, that he has to be split or she has to be split from their family. the mother of the children or their children are kept from coming to the united states because today the way the program is, they are kept from coming to the united states. so they don't have an opportunity to get a job anyhow. what this does do is rectifies a problem that allows parents to be reunited with their children. i don't know, but that's important to me as a father of three. i would much rather have my family here if i was a resident alien here. i would rather have my family here so i could reach out, touch them, help encourage them, move the
it will undermine democratic governments. it will continue to impede economic growth overseas and it will strengthen us right here in the united states. in other words, this isn't just an economic issue or a health care issue. it's a national security issue. unfortunately, mr. speaker, over the last decade acting in our national security interest has come to mean invading and occupying foreign nations. the iraq war lasted nine years and was responsible for untold human misery. the afghanistan war, now in its 12th year, and it continues to damage our national security interest, instead of enhancing them. it hasn't defeated the taliban, nor has it alleviating crushing poverty or produced a stable democracy in afghanistan. and then there's the cost. some $10 billion a month. that would be a staggering amount of money for a successful policy. for a failed policy, it's downright scandalous, and it is rarely mentioned in all the conversations about so-called deficit crisis and fiscal cliffs. usaid and other civilian arms of government could do a world of good towards solving the aids crisis with a fractio
on maintaining good government, and fierce loyalty to his home state, new hampshire, is something we in congress strive to attain. we will miss him. we will try to live by the standards he said. i remember when he was chairing the iran contra hearings in this room. even though we were from different parties, i thought how proud i was that he represented the state of new hampshire. i offer my condolences to the entire rudman family, his wife, children, and grandchildren. looking at the celebrated speakers who are here today to remember warren rudman, it is clear just how significant his contributions were to the senate and to the country. i am pleased to introduce my colleague, the other senator from the state of new hampshire. [applause] >> i want to thank my colleague, senator shaheen. i want to thank our distinguished guests who are here. as we gather to celebrate the achievements of a great man, warren rudman, a statesman who carry out the people's work with honesty, integrity, and decency . daniel webster said -- in the mountains of new hampshire, god almighty has hung out a sign that there
Search Results 0 to 15 of about 16